Charity and Capitalism Are Better Than Government
When I was young, I assumed government would lift people out of poverty. But those policies often do more harm than good.

It's the season for giving.
I'll give!
I'll donate to the Doe Fund, a charity that helps ex-cons find purpose in life through work. "Work works!" they say. It does. Doe Fund graduates are less likely to go back to jail.
I'll donate to Student Sponsor Partners (SSP), which helps at-risk kids escape bad "public [government-run]" schools.
SSP sends the kids to Catholic schools. I'm not Catholic, but I donate because the Catholic schools do better at half the cost. Thousands of families break the cycle of poverty thanks to SSP.
When I was young, I assumed government would lift people out of poverty. "Government programs, a 'war on poverty' will give a leg up to the poor," said my Princeton professors. I believed. But then I watched the programs fail.
Now I understand that government actions do as much harm as good. Sometimes, much more harm.
Take that "war on poverty." When it began, Americans were lifting themselves out of poverty. Year by year, the number of families below the poverty line decreased.
Then came our government bureaucrats with their rules and programs. So far, they've spent $25 trillion on programs for the poor.
The money helped some people. The poverty rate dropped for the first seven years of the "war."
But then progress stopped. Government's handouts encouraged people to became dependent on handouts.
Learned helplessness, it's called.
Welfare created an "underclass," generations of people who don't work. They'd lose benefits if they do.
Generations of people bear children but don't marry. They'd lose benefits if they do.
Government taught people to be passive. This passivity was something new and bad.
That's why charity is better. Charity workers can make judgments about who needs help and who needs a push.
Not all charities do good. Some are as bad as government. But when they are well run, charities encourage independence.
They also don't force us to give them money.
There's an even better way to help people: capitalism. Not that I'll convince most people.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) complained that Elon Musk should "pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else."
Freeloading? I like Musk's answer.
"I will pay more taxes than any American in history." (He paid $11 billion that year.) "Don't spend it all at once … oh wait you did already."
They sure did. The feds burn through $11 billion every 15 hours. Now Republicans and Democrats will spend even more.
Musk, meanwhile, is trying to make Twitter profitable. Some of his ideas are bad. Some will fail. But at least Musk spends his own money or money people willingly loan him.
Warren and her fellow politicians take money from us by force.
I prefer Musk's way.
Billionaires sometimes do nasty things. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg censors truthful reporting. Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos sneakily lobby for regulations (like a higher minimum wage) that give them advantages over their competitors. Former President Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey bought gross polluting yachts.
But it's their own money. They are free to spend it on whatever they want. Most do better things with it than government would.
Zuckerberg invented better ways to connect with people. Bezos makes shopping easier and cheaper. Musk stopped socialist idiots from censoring my Twitter account, created better electric cars, and gave satellite internet to poor people.
Businesses do better things because competition forces them to spend money well. If they don't spend well, they disappear.
Government never disappears. When politicians fail, they force us to give them more of our money so they can do it again.
People hate capitalists, but it's the capitalists who create the jobs, lift people out of poverty, and feed the world.
I'm a reporter, not an entrepreneur. I'm not likely to invent something new and useful. So today, I'll give money to charity.
It makes me feel good.
But the world benefits more from people like Musk—and the millions of entrepreneurs who try new things.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Then came our government bureaucrats with their rules and programs. So far, they've spent $25 trillion on programs for the poor.
Yep. It's an entire industry funded by the government. There is no incentive to lift people from poverty, because if they do then the money runs out. So the goal is to foster dependence in order to keep the sweet federal dollars flowing.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
Next up, how luck is better than planning.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.WORKSCLICK.COM
Poverty could be eliminated along with all other excuses, e.g.,federal programs, and the rulers could still tax. It's the act of creating rulers by the ruled that makes exploitation possible. When people stop forfeiting their sovereignty, creating the master/slave relationship, then we can have reason, rights, freedom of choice, instead of the authoritarianism we have now, worldwide.
People hate capitalists, but it's the capitalists who create the jobs, lift people out of poverty, and feed the world.
I don't know how to get through to people like that. They talk of "corporate slavery" as if corporations force people to work for them and buy their products, yet these same people get visibly angry if you point out the fact that government literally forces people to pay for things they neither want nor need. I think it comes from the belief that government is "us" and businesses are "them." They've got it totally backasswards.
The government is "us" as we elect our representatives. We select the people to tax us and to spend those tax dollars. It would be nice to spend less but we have to agree on that spending.
Elon Musk is a capitalist, but he has tied into a lot of government money from electric car subsidies and government space money. Elon is not alone in this respect. It is not just the poor that are dependent on government money.
Government is not "us." Government is the people in society who use force. It's the people who do things that would be criminal if done by anyone who is not part of their club. We are not government. Government is government.
The government is not "us."
The government is millions of faceless bureaucrats working at government agencies, administering the millions of government "programs." They are the ones submitting the budgets and spending the money. Who we elect barely even matters when it comes to taxing and spending.
I deal with federal bureaucrats in my job. They find the idea of new leaders changing things to be hilarious. They do what they want.
Bureaucrats don't levy taxes and don't write laws that to provide services Congress does these things. Congress is elected by us the people.
If everyone running wants to spend more tax money, it doesn’t matter who you elect. The two party system insures that everyone running will want to spend more money on something.
Lol. Congress barely writes laws anymore, either.
look at this noob, happily plugged into the matrix, completely content that everything is exactly as the top men tell him it is
Libertarians would be more credible re what charity can do if libertarians actually showed up to DO charity.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
What did you donate?
I'm not talking donations either.
AJ Nock in Our Enemy The State, wrote about the state increasing it's power at the expense of what he called "social power". Toqueville wrote about civil associations being the way problems get addressed without government. They are not talking about writing checks.
You are a damned fool if you can't see that working at $100 an hour and donating that to charity is more useful than "doing" charity that isn't even worth minimum wage. Better to pay multiple unemployed people to "do" charity than do it yourself.
You're wrong and in fact you are the reason that government can take over.
You imply that you don't know what actually needs doing.
If your only function is to cut checks, then the only difference between charitable donations and taxes is who does a better job selling you on what needs doing.
In both cases, you have no interest in and play no role in res publica - and therefore any objection to that non-role being taken away is just petulance. Even though that role is the difference between citizen and subject.
The difference between charitable donations and taxes is that charities don’t send men with guns to your home if you don’t want to contribute.
Edit: Also you can choose your charity. If you don’t like what they do you give to another. Taxes don’t have that option.
It's a distinction that's more pedantic than real.
If the point is that you want to change how the money is managed, then gotta get more deeply involved than just sending a check. And that's my original point.
If you want to just reduce the amount spent in aggregate (with no interest re above paragraph), then there's no real libertarian philosophy re charity.
“…gotta get more deeply involved.” Why is that required? It’s still charity volunteered and directed by yourself, rather than forced by government. It’s just a question of degree of involvement. If you volunteer your services at a hospice facility to clean bed pans but not to repair the roof, are you not credible as to what charity can do because you’re not all-in?
You're doing an ad hominem again. The point is that capitalism and voluntary charity do a better job than government at lifting people out of poverty. The charitable activities of the person making the argument do not have any effect on its validity.
You’re doing an ad hominem again.
Read my post. Read your post. YOU ARE the one doing ad hominem right there and that's it.
The point is that capitalism and voluntary charity do a better job than government at lifting people out of poverty.
Now you're doing irrelevant strawman.
I've been trying really hard not to call you stupid.
Do you find it funny that the people you hate the most, religious and conservative, donate far more time abd money to charities than the left who you seemingly adore?
And your rationalization for why government charity is better is hilarious.
Earning 100 an hour to pay 20 people 5 an hour in charity is far more efficient for total charity expended. But you hand waive it away as an apparent defense of government charity.
The most giving, most selfless people I have known in my life are very religious people (note: I myself am not in any way religious, pretty close to atheist)
When I imagine the lengths to which the missionaries in my parents' church have gone, the houses my parents' church helped build, and just the sheer amount of man hours they donated to help people...I cant imagine a modern leftist even thinking of doing the same.
The modern left's philosophy is completely based in marxism, and "somebody!" should fix this. "Somebody!" should pay for this. "Somebody!!!" should be taking care of this. AKA we should tax the rich more and govt should take care of it, so I can feel like a virtuous person, tell everyone that 'I CARE!!' (TM), but simultaneously dont have to actually lift a finger, and have no skin in the game.
Leftism is routed in self indulgence, laziness, and spending other peoples money under the guise of "altruism"
https://twitter.com/illtakemystand1/status/1607711548734144513?t=mQjBQmIZYA6hyv_1IaGfgg&s=19
Interesting – Leftists are shorter, uglier, weaker, less masculine, and less capable of fighting. They are more likely to exhibit manipulative, self-serving, and generally antisocial personality traits, including spite, narcissism, and psychopathy.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1608183167357431808?t=kQne4N-iyeMd-REKmUu6rw&s=19
The primary defining characteristic of leftism is the transgression of rights and boundaries. They don’t believe in them, they don’t respect them, they will subvert them. Leftism is thus a threat to sovereignty of every kind, because it is morally imperialist by its very nature.
The latent feeling of “civil war” in US politics points at a real political divide but it is ideological rather than geographic. Leftism is the enemy. Leftists are waging a war of parasitic annihilation against western civilisation.
They say good fences make good neighbours, well leftists reject the premise. Transgressing boundaries, squatting inside your home then using the state to grant themselves squatters rights, is how they roll. To the leftist, only leftism is recognised as possessing sovereignty.
[Link]
You are an even bigger damned fool if you can't tell the difference in an individual donating his own money and caring very much how it is spent, with government bureaucrats donating other people's money and caring only how many votes it buys.
Caring very much how it is spent is BS and hubris if you are not actually DOING something re that charity.
You have yet to present a cogent reason why enabling people to do it via donations is somehow not doing something.
What if my DOING is earning $100/hour to give to that charity? Why is that worthless but ladling out soup for an hour is worthwhile?
What do you think money is -- glitter, Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool of gold and baubles? Money is access to resources. Why give the charity one hour of resources when I can pay them 6 hours of resources? What is the difference?
I imply no such thing. That you infer it speaks volumes about your thought processes.
If I work at a soup kitchen for an hour ladling out soup, I have cost myself $100 and some needy person has lost whatever he would have been paid to do the same; call it minimum wage, $15.
If I work and earn $100 which I give to that same soup kitchen, and they pay 6 needy people to ladle out soup or sweep the floor or do anything, those 6 people are better off, and my position has changed not a whit, I am still out $100.
Capiche? Is that too simple for you?
Then there's the inference you picked up. Why would I pay less attention to that soup kitchen which gets my $100 than I would when I pick which soup kitchen gets my one hour of labor?
Damn you are stupid.
How the fuck do you know what to spend that money on at the soup kitchen? Is this some magic that happens when you cut a check? Because spending $15 an hour ladling soup is the biggest waste of money imaginable. Of course you don't know that because you are too busy breaking your arm patting yourself on the back after cutting someone a check and ordering them how to spend it.
How the fuck do I know that ladling soup for an hour is the best use of my time?
The soup kitchen is the one with skin in the game. Ask the people that run one -- would they rather be able to hire 6 homeless people to sweep floors and ladle soup, or would they rather have one person -- me -- ladle soup? They are the ones with skin in the game, not you, not the government. They know what is best.
And why do you think that I tell them what to do with that $100? I know why -- because that is what government does and you love government. Well, that isn't how I work and it isn't how almost all charity donors work. I send my donations with no strings attached, and I'd wager 99% of donations also come with no strings attached. They could buy pizza for themselves off-site and I'd never know.
Are you truly this fucking stupid?
JFree needs to understand how the War on Poverty completely failed.
How about a libertarian principle not to need charity? Imagine if every person could actually support themselves.
Indeed. Imagine a place where the men are strong, the women are pretty and the children are all above average. Oh - plus John Lennon.
Where men are real men, women are real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri are real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
And sheep are nervous? Oh, wait...That's Australia. 😉
Can't have that. Garrison Keillor got cancelled in his #MeToo scandal at Welfare Radio--er--NPR.
Yep, without minimum wage laws, occupational licensing, land zoning, business permits. Where people could actually help themselves.
JFree is immune to logic. He'll never understand that government creates poverty.
What your ilk of 'libertarian' wants is not what will actually help improve liberty. Because you are actually propertarian.
His ilk of libertarianism based on self sufficiency will always trump your brand of liberaltarianism that fosters government dependency.
Oho! You're one of those idiots who thinks "property rights" is an immoral oxymoron. You subscribe to the fallacy of "Human rights over property rights" as shown on so many protest signs.
Pro tip: "Property rights" is shorthand for the right to own and control property. That is one of the most basic human rights there is. To deny me the ability to create property, or trade for it, is to enslave me.
People who question property rights only question the property of others, as in “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.”
-- Hernando de Soto
And JFree.
Property is NOT liberty. It is merely property.
Property is property. The ability to own property is a hallmark of liberty. To deny that right is to enslave everybody who makes anything.
How does one acquire property? There are only two ways: You can invest time in producing it, or you can plunder those who do. Either way, property is time. If you're like most people you spend time working in order to get paid so you can purchase something produced by someone else's time.
Plunder is stealing someone's time. It's the same as slavery. Your time and effort are the property of someone else.
To say property is merely property is to say your time does not matter. If you can't keep your own property then your time is worthless. Your life doesn't belong to you.
Because of this I have nothing but contempt for people who do not respect property. Seriously. They're saying that nobody's life matters. We're all slaves. Not to sound like Sevo here, but the world would be better if such people stuck their head in the oven.
JFree, have you read "The Law" by Bastiat?
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
I think he nailed it on a lot of things.
Yes I have read most of what he wrote.
You’re one of those idiots who thinks “property rights” is an immoral oxymoron.
Usual strawman from your ilk.
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. - Adam Smith from Wealth of Nations
This is not Adam Smith playing commie. It sure as fuck is not Adam Smith conflating property with liberty. It is rather one small part of his advocacy for a nightwatchman state.
And a Libertarian principle of investment, so there are more profit-making, innovative firms to make better products for less cost, as well as provide good-paying jobs, both of which would benefit the able-bodied poor.
Don’t confuse the selfish conservative assholes in these comments for libertarians.
Edit: Seriously though, there's a phenomenon called "crowding out" that you might want to look up. That and, in case you haven't noticed from articles in this magazine, charity is becoming difficult thanks to laws and liability.
I do have a tough time distinguishing the commenters here from libertarians. But they both do claim libertarian as their mantle. And truly both ARE missing from the sort of volunteer organizations that could address what is called charity. Those orgs (not so much individuals) are the ones crowded out by 'state' as Nock wrote.
Know what the most charitable organizations are? Churches.
Know who is most likely to give money to churches? Conservatives.
Conservatives aren't libertarians. I see tons of religious folks DOING charity. But their solutions are often theocratic or paternalistic at best. And the ones who do show up are definitely not libertarian.
I repeat - libertarians aren't credible if they don't show up.
I've read that libertarians and conservatives donate blood more often than liberals do. An off-hand search gives me this... https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1 ... But libertarians aren't mentioned there. Just FYI...
(I have given blood for many years now, even AFTER Government Almighty bleeds me dry!)
Libertarians aren't mentioned because they truly are invisible in actual charity. I'm glad you donate blood (nb not just money) but that is a personal effort you make.
More in line with 'libertarian thinking' is an article written by Jacob Hornberger (if my memory serves he was a big-L pres candidate right?) - Catholics, Libertarians, and Coerced Charity.
The article starts with a reference to a conference at a Catholic university called Erroneous Autonomy: The Catholic Case Against Libertarianism. The link to that conference is now dead but if you search the title, there are plenty of references to it online. With a lot of detail about what was said there.
There is none of that in this article. Simply - I wasn't there but for the life of me I cannot understand how a Catholic can be anything but a libertarian. Let’s consider, first of all, the concept of charity
And with that he then proceeds:
Not to making a Catholic case FOR Libertarianism
Not to making a Libertarian case FOR Charity.
But to making a Libertarian case against coercion. With some Sunday school level handwaving about how a libertarian should interpret the Bible re coercion and free will.
With the conclusion of the article being - how can a Catholic be anything but a libertarian, given that libertarianism honors and protects God’s gift of free will by leaving man free to decide whether what to do with his own money, including the choice of donating to the poor or not?
The choice of donating to the poor or not? FFS. That is not a libertarian philosophy about charity. Or not one that anyone who is religious or not should take seriously at all. It is SOLELY about coercion as defined by libertarians.
Let me make my own interpretation of that last sentence.
The libertarian philosophy of charity includes everything from quiet anonymous/not donations of time/money - to - vociferous FYTW about the poor.
What do YOU think the view re libertarian philosophy of charity will be to everyone outside the libertarian tent looking in?
Charity means voluntarily helping the needy. The philosophy of libertarianism is that charity ought to replace government programs.
Given the massive amounts of government handouts, many people are not interested in charity for "the poor" because nobody is really "poor" in any absolute sense.
Volunteering therefore focuses more on education, building community, and religious conversion.
That’s a textbook ad hominem. You’re judging the argument based upon the person making it, not the ideas in it.
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
THAT'S an ad hominem.
Lol. Religous charity is paternalistic but government charity isn't?
How many hours of charitable work did you put in this year? I have 4 weekends. You?
Many social conservatives are libertarians.
If they are engaged in private charity, their solutions are not "theocratic" but compatible with libertarianism. And charity is supposed to be paternalistic, that is what makes it preferable to government handouts.
I suspect that the problem is that you evidently have no idea what a libertarian actually is.
And how do you know that?
I spent 10 years volunteering in a charity, and not once did my political affiliation or beliefs come up.
Libertarians (and everyone else) would contribute more to charity if the government stopped taking so much in taxes.
I’ve asked liberals about this, and they say it’s the government’s responsibility. And then they complain that the government isn’t doing a good job, and needs more money. Then they go into the Trump tax cuts and I tune them out.
That too is nonsense. Charitable DONATIONS are mostly (meaning total $) a function of TAX deductions for charity.
The lower income do tend to donate a higher % of their income to charity - but that money donation is a form of safety net insurance for themselves (which does not apply to donations by the rich).
And their major donation is of time, effort, activity. Vs the once a year showiness by the rich of serving soup to the poor at Xmastime.
1) Not true. Plenty of charity donations do not need government involvement.
2) Also not true. Once again, charities where government isn't involved does not have this. Neither the poor nor the rich need to worry about "safety net insurance".
3) Also false. A lot of the soup serving happens weekly, not once a year.
Repent of your lies, JFree.
My wife and I make charitable contributions almost equal to our Federal income tax, and we’re not poor.
How do you know they don't?
Government Almighty fucks up EVERYTHING that it touches! Government Almighty = war! War on invading tyrants makes sense. So does war on natural disasters, and invading disease outbreaks, at times, and in proper proportion. War on just about ANYTHING else is just about ALWAYS counterproductive! Yet TONS of idiots show up right HERE, commenting that we need a WAR on internet freedom for privately owned web sites!!! Do NOT trust the owners to moderate... Trust Government Almighty = war!
DOWN with war, and UP with Section 230!!!
Government programs did not just appear out of thin air, they were a response to the fact that as good as charities are they are also limited in what they can do. While voluntary giving is good it is also reliant on human nature. The charity getting the most donations may not be the most in need but instead is the one that has the best visibility and advertising plan. The best system is one that incorporates and uses private charities footprint in the community and government funding.
It is important to remember that the war on poverty helped many. The problem is trying to continue to use that model instead of looking at where the government programs failed and they adjusting to better help those remaining in poverty.
The war on poverty is as stupid as the war on drugs. Both are unwinnable resource sumps that do nothing to solve the problem they were created to address.
It's not stupid- it's sinister.
And it continues accomplishing its goals.
Govt growth was not simply a response to perceived failure of civil association. Even if I agree that civil association DOES have some structural failure - which is why anarchism is worse than just a dead end philosophy.
Growth is the absolute norm for all bureaucracies. The difference between private and government bureaucracies is that free markets and competition keep private bureaucracies in check. Government has no such checks; it is immortal and compulsive, and its bureaucracies grow unchecked.
The fundamental difference between business and bureaucracy is that one makes money and the other spends it.
???
Business and bureaucracy are not different or the same. You may as well proclaim the difference between apples and gravity.
All organizations have bureaucracy, even single person corporations, because they have to keep logs and notes, even if not for government reporting.
I said that wrong. Government bureaucracy vs business bureaucracy. One is concerned chiefly in saving money while the other in spending it.
Government programs did not just appear out of thin air, they were a response to the fact that as good as charities are they are also limited in what they can do.
That's not true at all. Government programs arose because there is shame in taking charity, and they wanted to take away the shame. Which is a really bad thing because shame encourages people to stop taking charity, while government makes it a lifestyle.
^Bingo.
When you're taking charity, there is an awareness that someone else is giving you their own resources. You're aware that you're taking something from someone else, and it makes you feel bad. You SHOULD feel bad about consuming other people's resources.
When you're on the public dole, it's "public money" and you feel entitled to it.
Learned helplessness, it's called.
And this was before they tried (and succeeded) to put the entire country on welfare during The Deadly Pandemic©.
And the government programs that get the most funding are those with the best lobbyists. The misallocation of resources in government programs for the poor and needy is staggering, as is their failure to deliver results.
The war on poverty in the US created a permanent underclass and is destroying the social fabric of the US. It has not just failed, it has been a total disaster.
I attended Catholic schools at great expense to my impoverished parents (7 children). I am the only one with a 4 year degree, but all seven can all be considered way out of the poverty level. Just sayin'.
Artie seems incapable of letting the thought of Catholic schools being good get into his head. He is a miserable man.
>>When I was young, I assumed government would lift people out of poverty.
when I was young I learned Reagan's nine most terrifying words.
"We are from government and we're here to help."
“We’re from the government, and we’re here to help…Democrats win elections” - Merrick Garland
When I was young, I learned about Reagan's Fourteen Words.
Goldwater had an even 30 - - - - - -
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
This is nice and all, but what happens when Amazon decides to lock you out of your fridge because you verbalized your belief that Ellen Page is a mentally ill woman? Stossel's been writing the same middle school essay about the virtues of capitalism for years now, without taking into account the fact that socially progressive corporations want you either dead or miserable.
Stossel is better than anyone else who writes for Reason, but he's also kinda a little bitch.
See some of his early career
Stossel started off by looking into what corporations were doing. He then took note that government was just as bad, if not worse (usually worse). That was a part of his awakening. He's far more libertarian than any of the other writers here by far.
He started off as a liberal until he investigated what he believed. Kinda like Thomas Sowell who was a liberal until he worked for government.
Makes you wonder how obtuse someone has to be to stay a liberal.
Obtuse or superiority complex?
Yes?
What happens when government does the same, and there are no other sources of refrigerators?
I'll take a Amazon fridge any day over a government fridge.
So don't buy an AI spy fridge, dummy. 🙂
Libertarianism supports free markets and opposes state-mandated ones.
Apart from the above, libertarian ideology has nothing backing a rationale for capitalism per se.
Reason should avoid making one or avoid backing specific forms of free markets to support !!
I say again:
Stop using marxist terminology.
Capital economies can take many forms, some bad. Cronyism, fascism, socialism, communism can all be called capitalism and disguised by how they’re executed.
What we want is a free market.
ESG isn’t a threat to capitalism because ESG is capitalism. It’s bad capitalism.
ESG is a threat to FREE MARKETS. It’s corruption of the market using capital allocation to distort it toward unnatural, political results.
Capitalism is simply what naturally emerges when property rights and contracts are enforced by governments. Fascism, socialism and communism do not respect either. Crony capitalism is more accurately called crapitalism. Capitalism can exist in countries that do not engage in free trade. It’s called protectionism.
ESG interferes with freedom of contract and with people doing what they choose with their property.
Capitalism is a term Marxists use to refer to any economic system that has private ownership of the means of production.
Marxists use the term "capitalist" to equivocate and confuse economic and political systems, and to associate free markets with fascism.
And by blithely referring to our system as "capitalist", you are supporting their equivocation.
Musk stopped socialist idiots from censoring my Twitter account
Quit picking on the DOJ, Stoss.
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1608141920878071814?t=zr8QbG6fW4PIYXWPfUS5XA&s=19
Another client state in the making.
"Zelensky announces he is planning to join World Economic Forum in Davos, to sign new postwar loans with BlackRock"
[Link]
https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1608173543606435844?t=V9EQ0OrbAjQSWzs2wUvcGQ&s=19
BlackRock is even more powerful than a quasi state entity, now buying up countries in exchange for monetary infusions.
At least Reason still runs John Stossel columns. It's good to know at least one writer here is consistently libertarian.
Catholic schools teach nonsense -- complete, silly fucking nonsense -- to children.
John Stossel supports this objectionable conduct at the expense of children who deserve better from adults.
One more reason he is just another disaffected, antisocial, inconsequential loser at the fringe of modern, mainstream liberal-libertarian America.
One more reason he is just another disaffected, antisocial, inconsequential loser at the fringe of modern, mainstream liberal-libertarian America.
Solid 4/5, amigo
If it's nonsense, dweebazoid, then how come they have a much higher rate of graduation and a much higher rate of graduates going to college or trade school?
Face facts, Artie, you're just jealous of them.
Fine. But do they understand the gender unicorn spectrum? That's what REALLY matters to an educated society.
Choose reason. Every time.
Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, and childish superstition.
Choose reason. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, ignorance, backwardness, superstition, bigotry, and credulity.
Choose reason. Every time. And education, progress, science, modernity, inclusiveness, and freedom. Avoid ignorance, insularity, bigotry, superstition, dogma, authoritarianism, backwardness, and pining for "good old days" that never existed. Not 175 years ago. Not 75 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago, except in fairy tales suitable solely for toddlers and especially gullible adolescents.
Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.
Or, at least, please try.
Otherwise, you are destined to become a disaffected, nonsense-believing, delusional culture war casualty.
See my take on Catholic Schools below before you flourish your cape; Klinger. ????
The Catholic Church's longstanding, widespread, systematic facilitation and concealment of sexual abuse of children -- to protect the church's personnel, image, and riches -- is another reason to conclude that those who wish to take money from public schools for funding of Catholic schools are valueless, deplorable assholes.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church has done tremendous amount of support for billions of individuals for two millennia. You owe your gratitude to them for innovations like hospitals, universities, orphanages, etc., and for all advances that came from those institutions. It’s no wonder that Catholics are doing much better than government officials at their education.
In addition, statistics show that sexual abuse of children was no more likely to occur in the Catholic Church than it is by public schools, Hollywood, daycare centers, etc. You’ve been deceived by the media into thinking otherwise.
You should repent of your blatant totalitarian anti-Catholicism.
Apparently that "sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, and childish superstition" has resulted in better graduation rates and better competence with reading, writing and arithmetic, and greater rates of charity. Seems like the Catholic schools are having it much better than the government-run public schools!
Seek Jesus, Artie. It'll actually help a guy like you.
You have not refuted InsaneTrollLogic.
Having attended a Catholic School, I would say you are very wrong. Most of what I learned at Catholic School was the same thing I would learn at any good school. Math, English, Science and History. I also learned a lot of social values like fighting prejudice and taking care of people less fortunate. Some of that was though charity and some of that by electing socially conscience leaders.
Capitalists create value by making and selling things (or services) that people are willing to pay for, at a price they are willing to pay. If the capitalist keeps his or her costs down, they earn a profit. Over time, the capitalists are more successful at creating useful things at the lowest cost will accumulate more money than those who are less adept. This benefits everyone, because more of the total wealth in the economy is managed by people who have proven successful at managing it. Progressives call this "inequality" and think it's a bad thing.
Profits are the price we pay for efficiency.
Prices and money are the grease which keeps free market engines running. Socialism makes prices meaningless and money an abstraction, which is why socialist economies always grind to a halt, and why "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".
Profits? Pfah. They are just wages. Witness all the non-profits which pay handsome wages.
Profit oriented businesses are constantly in search of ways to make things more efficient, because that’s how you cut costs and increase profits.
Take profits away and there is no incentive to be efficient. Government is the textbook example of this.
Profits are still just another name for wages. Even government jobs have wages.
Ummm, no.
Ummm, yes, as shown by the good wages at non-profits. Interest is wages too.
Earnings is earnings. It is pointless to separate them into categories unless you are a tax accountant.
With how much government pays for NGOs and non profits, they have enormous wages than would be gained by charity.
Seattle spends enough on Homeless programs to give every homeless person in the state 70k. A year. But by filtering it through NGOs and friendly groups it helps politicians get elected.
See how much settlement money was given to activist groups by the DoJ during the Obama years.
Often times these charities are just political organizations under the guise of charity.
I read somewhere, years ago, that local, state, and federal welfare programs cost $1.2T to distribute $0.2T of actual benefits.
Profits are what’s left after expenses, and wages are an expense.
They are all earnings.
Are we talking about the same thing? Wages are a red line in the book. For many businesses it's the single biggest expense.
No, profits are the return on a capital investment.
Wages are not "profits", they are an expense.
For some reason most of the socialist class is "artists", "baristas", and others with a simple lifestyle. Ask anyone of them of they would work in a socialist society as a sewer cleaner or waste management and they will say no, someone else will. Ask them who would do that work when they can claim they are artists and the socialist will tell you they aren't artists so they have to do those jobs.
Basically it is the lazy and non motivated who support socialist with no understanding that tough jobs do require harder work and are compensated as such.
But what does efficiency mean? Efficiency can mean sending production overseas and firing your local work force.
Capitalism will always have inequalities and that is not a bad thing. If those inequalities rise at some point they will threaten capitalism and that is a bad thing. The best economy for capitalism has a small percentage of rich and a small percentage of poor, with most of the people in the middle class.
Gov-Gun Theft =/= Charity..
Only Criminal Minds who belong in jail carry such beliefs.
...And jail is where they should find their welfare...
NOT the freedom to be armed-robbers.
Whoever sold the public the idea that looting should be legal for lazy, self-entitled, dishonest, criminal-minded narcissists ?poor? essentially sold the public the idea that subsidizing the worst human traits ever would somehow make the world a better place. The subsidizing criminals is starting to show with the GROWTH of criminal mentalities.
Here’s where Stossel loses me:
I’ll donate to Student Sponsor Partners (SSP), which helps at-risk kids escape bad “public (government-run) schools.
SSP sends the kids to Catholic schools. I’m not Catholic, but I donate because the Catholic schools do better at half the cost.
How is it a bargain to give to a school system that molests and abuses children if it does it for half the cost of Gummint Skoolz?
Why not give to charities that support Homeschooling/Unschooling curricula that teach children to think and act autonomously, independently, and responsibly, without dependence on God or Government?
The rate of molestation and abuse of children in Catholic schools is much lower than in public schools.
The Catholic Church's longstanding, widespread, systematic facilitation and concealment of sexual abuse of children -- to protect the church's personnel, image, and riches -- is another reason to conclude that those who wish to take money from public schools for funding of Catholic schools are valueless, deplorable assholes.
If I were a parent, I would want to take my money (which it is) and spend it on a Secular, Rational, Critical-Thinking Curriculum reading, writing, foreign languages, math, geometry, algebra, science, and history for Homeschoolers or Unschoolers. And if such a curriculum didn't exist, I would want to create one.
Now that would be a reason flourish a cape! 🙂
On the contrary, the Catholic Church has done tremendous amount of support for billions of individuals for two millennia. You owe your gratitude to them for innovations like hospitals, universities, orphanages, etc., and for all advances that came from those institutions. It’s no wonder that Catholics are doing much better than government officials at their education.
In addition, statistics show that sexual abuse of children was no more likely to occur in the Catholic Church than it is by public schools, Hollywood, daycare centers, etc. You’ve been deceived by the media into thinking otherwise.
You should repent of your blatant totalitarian anti-Catholicism.
Despite the undeniable good the Catholic church has done over the millennia, they are also responsible for plenty of evil.
He name names
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1608231209875963904?t=9IhOZliVE0HSYSf1Vriyhw&s=19
1/ THREAD #TwitterFiles
@elonmusk slams CISA censorship network as 'propaganda platform.'
This DHS-backed censorship consortium used 120 analysts to censor millions of social media posts on elections and covid-19.
[Thread, links]
Poverty could be eliminated along with all other excuses, e.g.,federal programs, and the rulers could still tax. It’s the act of creating rulers by the ruled that makes exploitation possible. When people stop forfeiting their sovereignty, creating the master/slave relationship, then we can have reason, rights, freedom of choice, instead of the authoritarianism we have now, worldwide.
Absolute poverty in the US has been eliminated.
At this point, we only have relative poverty, and that can never be eliminated the way it is defined mathematically.
If charity worked by itself, then Victorian England would have been paradise. When there were only "widows and orphans" charity institutions, the widows, orphans, disabled and old people had short and nasty existences in workhouses and begging on the street. That could happen again, given lots of political contributions, wins and time for a successful generation of anti-gov crony capitalists to become our feudal overlords.
Considering that Victorian England inherited a subpar situation and later saw excellent economic growth and improved living conditions during the mid-19th century, I say that Stossel is right in this regard.
I'll now let others exercise their talents in refuting you.